Tancredo Watch

Congressman’s Latest Proposal Would Change Constitution

By Howard Rothman, 11-13-05

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado's most quotable elected official, is at it again in his high-profile fight against illegal immigration. Now, he wants to change the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in an effort to eliminate so-called "birthright citizenship" – a 150-year-old clause that bestows automatic citizenship on on anyone born in the U.S. But while the proposal floated this week has, not surprisingly, gained its share of supporters, even some conservatives are joining with liberals to denounce it as a terrible idea.

Arguments by opponents of the proposal center on the fact that framers of the 14th Amendment knew exactly what they were doing when they decided to guarantee that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." As the Washington Post points out in a strongly worded Saturday editorial, the Amendment does not say "all persons except children of illegal immigrants, (nor) all persons except those Congress exempts in moments of nativism. (It says) all persons."

Such a reaction from an admittedly liberal editorial page won't really turn any heads. What may, however, is the equally quick and equally negative response from some on the opposite side of the aisle like The Conservative Voice -- a blog that generally supports the Colorado Congressman's position that the immigration issue should be addressed -- but not in this manner. "This is the land of opportunity as well as a country built upon immigration," Warner Todd Huston wrote over the weekend, "and we mustn't change that aspect of our nation over a temporary border problem with our neighbor or a security issue that will not always stay imminent."

Tancredo does have his supporters, naturally. A column in Saturday's Charlotte Observer calls the Congressman an "expert on immigration law" and relays his estimate that there are 300,000-350,000 of these births each year. The author of this piece is among those who wholeheartedly agrees that elimination of the so-called "birthright citizenship" clause is a fine idea, and one that Congress should immediately consider. [End of article]

What does being a "nation of immigrants" (and no others are not?) have to do with denying automatic citizenship to children whose parents have chosen to wipe their feet on our laws and sovereignty?

The United States is among the last few countries that is stupied enough to continue this practice; most of the rest of the world seems to have "gotten it" and abandoned this foolishness that only encourages people to enter this country illegally.

Most Americans don't realize that the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect recently freed slaves and had nothing to do with immigration. In fact, when it passed in 1868 there were NO IMMIGRATION LAWS in the United States.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with changing the Constitution if in the end all American citizens benefit from it? And I can't see how we wouldn't if we began discouraging illegal immigration that only depresses wages for millions of our own working poor, overburdens our schools and hospitals, and contributes to environmental degradation and rising crime rates in many parts of the nation.

Dave Gorak
Executive Director
Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration
LaValle, WI
http://www.immigrationreform.org

Tancero is Mr. IDIOT !

Tancero and others alike should be deported! America is immigrants country.
V. Dvorak
Wisconsin Dells,WI

If TANCREDO is an idiot for asking only that the rule of law be maintained and that we not reward people for breaking our immigraiton laws, what does that make V.Dvorak and Josef Hala?

Section One of the 14th Amendment was never really ratified by a President and/or Congress.

Congress could change this most prosposterous
"anchoe baby" law with a simple stroke of a pen.

As Dave Gorak states, America is one of the few nations to still have this "born into citizenship" policy. This is not about being against immigration, it's about doing it properly and legally.

Our Southern border states are enduring a crisis in medical and social services due to massive illegal immigration.

As a nation we have a right, and a duty, to protect our borders and institute appropriate immigration legislation. And stridently enforce that legislation.

A strange and bitter irony is that while so many liberals bang the "America is always wrong" drum, they meanwhile welcome swarms of illegal aliens who are literally dying to enter our country because of its wonderful freedoms and opportunities.

Mr. Larson, I'm an American liberal and I am against illegal immigration. The immigration question suspends your brand of partisan stereotyping, I'm afraid. Here in Texas, for instance, I was fully in support of the volunteers who patrolled our southern border in the absence of any state authority doing same. As for American always being wrong, that only holds true when it is in control of free-market fundamentalists and neoconservative idealogues, such as in 2005.

Yes, Tancredo is an expert on immigration. The as-usual ignorant, reactionary Wash Post gets it wrong. The key langhuage in the 14th is, "and under the juristiction thereof...." Trace the Lockeian origins of that languagean it indeed does exclude illegals. For a quick read, see: Orange County Register, "Anchor babies false citizenship"
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/04/24/sections/commentary/READER REBUTTALS/article_492388.php